The iconic painting Remnants of an Army from 1879 by the Victorian artist Elizabeth Thompson (Lady Butler) shows William Brydon slumped on a horse arriving at Jalalabad; the only survivor of the disastrous 1842 retreat from Kabul. It is one of the biggest disasters of British Military history. The British had been routed at the final defense of the 44th Regiment at Gandamak against Afghan tribal forces during the retreat from Kabul. Afghanistan has always been the Achilles’ heel of empires. Whether that be Britain or Russia. Or the U.S.. The painting shows the limping horse, tongue hanging: it is an Icarian metaphor for empire. Afghanistan won’t stop tormenting empires: we are back up the Khyber Pass, so to speak.
Yet the growing importance of robust international legal frameworks to govern state conduct, particularly in the handling of sensitive data, is becoming salient.
Fast forward to early 2022, and the U.K. Ministry of Defence (MoD) mistakenly sent an email that exposed the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals who had supported British military operations during the conflict in Afghanistan. The spreadsheet contained sensitive information, including names, contact details, and in some cases, the identities of British spies, MPs, and MOD personnel.
This error potentially endangered up to 100,000 individuals, including family members, by making them identifiable to the Taliban. Since the British establishment cannot be trusted to secure its stream of information, and seems to be above parliamentary control, we do not know if the number of names is even higher. The breach was not made public until July 2025 due to a rare “super-injunction” that suppressed both media reporting and parliamentary scrutiny. Once the injunction was lifted, the leak was widely condemned, not only for its operational implications but also for its profound violations of international legal obligations.
The entire case brings up three existential issues. One is the domestic aspect of the law: the threat to democracy of the “super-injunction.” In both Britain and the U.S., there appears to be a concentration of executive power. Parliament and Congress are playing second fiddle to the president.
The second is the international legal aspect. This has opened a debate as wide as the Khyber Pass about the frailty of international law to protect citizens. These concerns apply to the U.S. and the U.K. equally.
The third and evolving issue is the sheer folly of the NeoCon approach to policing the world. There is at least one positive to this: Iraq and Afghanistan add credence to a vision of “non-interference” and a multipolar world. This, at least, surely puts to bed the Democrat and Labour U.K. vision of exporting a moral liberal crusade.
Obligations Under International Law
The second dilemma throws up the U.S. and U.K. obligations under international law. Both Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obliges European states to protect individuals whose lives may be at risk, especially when the risk arises from the state’s own actions. By disclosing the identities of Afghan allies, the U.K. may have breached these obligations. Legal expert Adnan Malik of “Barings Law” stated that the breach “put [Afghans] and their loved ones at serious risk of violence,” highlighting the state’s duty to foresee and prevent such dangers.
The right to privacy is another critical concern. Article 17 of the ICCPR protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy and personal data. Although many of those affected were not U.K. nationals, international law increasingly recognizes that states have obligations to protect the data of all individuals within their control, especially in military contexts.
This aligns with emerging international norms, such as those found in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which, while not directly binding in this case, provide a relevant benchmark. Sean Humber, a data breach specialist from “Leigh Day,” observed that the Ministry of Defence appeared “institutionally incapable of keeping information secure,” suggesting a systemic failure that may warrant legal accountability.
The leak also intersects with the U.K.’s obligations under refugee law, particularly the principle of “non-refoulement,” which prohibits returning individuals to a country where they may face torture, persecution, or inhumane treatment. Enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, this principle requires that asylum seekers be protected from exposure to harm. By inadvertently disclosing the identities of ARAP (Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy) applicants, the U.K. may have compromised their safety and jeopardized their ability to claim protection. Even without direct deportation, the increased risk created by the leak may constitute a constructive violation of non-refoulement.
From a broader legal standpoint, the incident could amount to an internationally wrongful act under the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. If the U.K. is found to have breached its international obligations, it is legally bound to offer reparations. This could take the form of compensation, public acknowledgment, and guarantees against future violations. With legal firms already preparing claims on behalf of the affected individuals, the financial and reputational consequences for the U.K. government could be significant.
International humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, also provides protection for civilians during and after conflict. Civilians who support foreign or occupying military forces are afforded certain safeguards, especially when their actions place them at increased risk following the end of hostilities. The Afghans whose identities were disclosed had played direct roles in supporting British forces. The failure to ensure their protection may contravene the U.K.’s obligations under the laws of armed conflict, which emphasize the duty of former belligerents to safeguard civilians who cooperated with them.
By mid-2022, over 76,000 Afghans had been admitted into the U.S. “Operation Allies Refuge” (2021) was launched to evacuate Afghans eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) and other vulnerable groups after the Taliban takeover. The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Program was organized for interpreters, drivers, guards, and others who worked with the U.S. military or government. The Humanitarian Parole was used for tens of thousands of Afghans not eligible for SIVs, giving them temporary legal entry while they pursued asylum or other legal status.
The U.S. evacuation saw many Afghans who had worked directly with U.S. forces left behind, stuck in Afghanistan or neighboring countries. A backlog of 60,000 SIV applications created significant bureaucratic delays. For the U.S., there is the historical memory of the evacuation helicopters circling over the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the Vietnam War. The British debacles go further back. It was Hegel who noted that we never learn anything from history; history revolves around and around like a doomed carousel.
The problem for International Law is that there are now so many incidents of non-compliance, from Ukraine to Gaza, that its enforcement is without teeth. Yet the growing importance of robust international legal frameworks to govern state conduct, particularly in the handling of sensitive data, is becoming salient. New digital legislation is necessary, although in the present climate, its implementation is in doubt. The current sentiment is anti-global. We are in the post-globalization era where large sovereign states are reasserting hegemony.
Domestically, Britain is paying the price of huge civil service incompetence at the highest levels. From the Foreign Secretary David Lammy to the echelons of departmental clerks, there is a lack of acumen. Britain needs to move away from DEI and embrace quality. The departments involved need to be dismantled.
Liberal democracy (representative democracy) is dysfunctional as representative choice remains prescribed. There is a two-tier judicial system where indigenous British citizens feel disfranchised. The legal problems, internationally or domestically, are merely the veneer of paint on a rotten timbered frame. The U.S., at least, has recognized the malaise, and there is an attempt to redress institutional incompetence through DOGE and reform. In Britain, the Carousel is still revolving.
In a hundred years from now, there will be a new painting. Remnants of a Government by Banksy, daubed onto the derelict buildings of Westminster. It will show a bespectacled Starmer slumped over a horse, paraded through Pall Mall by the mob.
READ MORE from Brian Patrick Bolger:
Ursula von der Leyen: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Child-Killer Lucy Letby and the Banality of Evil
Brian Patrick Bolger LSE. He has taught International Law and Political Philosophy at Universities in Europe. His articles have appeared in leading magazines and journals worldwide in the US, the UK, Italy, Canada, etc. His new book, Nowhere Fast: Democracy and Identity in the Twenty-First Century, is published now by Ethics International Press. He is an adviser to several think tanks and corporations on Geopolitical Issues.